Hatton Grove

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 2 January 2025 (assessment visit 10 October 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

   We identified breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment.

   Some risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had not been properly assessed, monitored or mitigated. These included risks within the environment and unlocked cleaning products. Some areas of the building had not been sufficiently cleaned and procedures for managing infection prevention and control were not always followed.

   Whilst people had received their medicines as prescribed, some of the systems for managing medicines were not being followed and there was a risk to people’s safety and wellbeing because of this.

   We discussed the concerns were identified with the manager. They took action to put some of these right immediately after our visit.

   People using the service and their relatives felt they were safe. There were appropriate systems for safeguarding people from the risk of abuse, and for responding to things that had gone wrong. Staff were familiar with these. They and people’s relatives gave us examples of learning and how improvements had been made to the service following incidents and accidents.

   There were enough suitably trained and qualified staff. They were deployed in a suitable way and there were clear lines of responsibility.

   The provider supported people with safe transitions between services and worked with external professionals to make sure people felt safe and supported.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

   People’s needs and choices had been assessed. The assessments involved them and their representatives and followed best practice guidance. Care plans had been developed to reflect these assessments. People’s care needs had been reviewed. The staff worked in partnership with other professionals to provide evidence-based care and monitor people’s health and wellbeing. The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and obtained consent for people’s care and treatment.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

   People had good relationships with staff who treated them with kindness and respect. Staff understood how people communicated and made choices. People took part in a range of activities designed to meet their social and leisure needs and they spent time with others outside of their home. People were supported to be independent and learn new skills when they were able. The staff felt well supported and cared for. There were systems designed to support their well-being and development.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

   People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. Their human rights were respected and barriers to good outcomes were overcome. The staff listened to and involved people and their families.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

   We identified a breach relating to good governance.

   The provider’s systems for monitoring and improving quality as well as monitoring and mitigating risk had not always been operated effectively. Whist people received personalised care, this was not always safe and the provider’s checks on the environment, cleanliness and medicines management had not always identified risks to safety. Records were not always accurate or up to date. This meant there was a risk people would not receive appropriate care and support.

   The manager had recently started work at the service and was not registered with CQC. They had previous experience of working at other services and demonstrated a good knowledge about best practice. Staff, people using the service, and their relatives liked the manager and thought they had introduced some positive changes. The manager worked with other care services to understand and develop best practice. There was a positive culture at the service, where all stakeholders felt supported and empowered.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.